They don't tell you what to do if you don't have any friends.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Love Isn't Like The Movies Boys
I don't know much about love. There have been times when I thought I was in love, only to realize afterward if I had been in love, I'd probably still be in it now. I don't think true love disappears on a whim or a simple argument. It's complicated and chaotic and passionate and makes you think you're crazy. You very well may be crazy when you're falling in love. I just don't know.
I grew up with parents and grandparents who didn't exactly pour emotion out of their hearts. They didn't snuggle and kiss and do all the cutie things you imagine with love. For special occasions, flowers were given and the obligatory closed mouth kisses. There were two easy chairs in the living room and a couch for us girls. On the odd occasion mom and dad were on the couch together, we thought their chairs were broken.
I'm watching Bridges of Madison County. It's one of the few movies that truly touched my heart. I believed that Robert and Elise fell in love in a way she could never have imagined when she married and had children. Did she deserve to lose the right to such a love because of a decision made at a time when she didn't has the full scope of information? In those time, it appeared the answer was yes.
I have never watched the scene of Elise in the truck with her husband at a red light, her hand on the door, every ounce of her being fighting to go with him but holding herself back to do what was right for her children. The words "this type of certainty comes but once in a lifetime" echoing in her head.
Through it all, she had doubts of his world traveler lifestyle and whether she would fit in. It was only after he died, leaving a legacy of the live they would have shared if she had chosen a different path. Her children, now adults, learning what she gave up to stay with them.
But it was too late. He Robert spent his life living adventures with and for her, but without her presence, only to die and send back his memories. I've never experienced such love myself, but I can imagine that if it was to come, there would be a reason I could not have it. I would never be able to embrace the love that was brought it to me.
Similarly, The Way We Were examined a great love of two inherently different people. Despite their great affection for each other, they had to finally face the fact that they would never find peace in each others arms, only more tests and tribulations. While excitement came of such ventures, families and futures did not. Another great love was lost due to differing opinions and the need to espresso their way of living separately.
Watching the final scene, as they run not each other n the street, knowing how deeply the did and still do care for one anger, but never able to live with the consequences of heir love, and observing each others great happiness without that love ripped from me great sobs of loss.
The final movie that exacted from me great joy that love can exact meaning in s many strange ways was Leaving Las Vegas. I cannot, at this moment, recall the characters names, but that their expectations of each other we're only to love as much as the other was willing to give and nothing more, without judgement was so beautiful to me.
All three movies elicit from me such different emotions, all are so pure and yet I don't believe I will ever encounter a love matching any of them myself. I don't know if it's because loves looked those written don't truly exist or because I'm not capable of receiving them. It has to come down to one or the other, right?
I seem to be fairly good at sending people packing with a mere slip of the tongue. What was once "I love you more" becomes "I'd like you to leave please" and I never know what comes between. My geisha qualities being slim, I can make a guess, but that's all support to count against true love, further proving I've never experienced it.
Take me as I am and don't expect fairy tales and maybe dreams can come true. Or, at least a slight run at the damned impossible. I do know when you say you're willing to stand by during the hard times, even the first one counts. And the second, as there will likely be more bad than good as you find your footing. That's what makes the long term incredible everlasting love we SHOULD be writing movies about.
Share your favorite movies, thoughts and expectations with me. Frak knows I can use the advice. The photo represents the cold, barren aspect of my love life. Feel the weight of THAT on your shoulders!
I grew up with parents and grandparents who didn't exactly pour emotion out of their hearts. They didn't snuggle and kiss and do all the cutie things you imagine with love. For special occasions, flowers were given and the obligatory closed mouth kisses. There were two easy chairs in the living room and a couch for us girls. On the odd occasion mom and dad were on the couch together, we thought their chairs were broken.
I'm watching Bridges of Madison County. It's one of the few movies that truly touched my heart. I believed that Robert and Elise fell in love in a way she could never have imagined when she married and had children. Did she deserve to lose the right to such a love because of a decision made at a time when she didn't has the full scope of information? In those time, it appeared the answer was yes.
I have never watched the scene of Elise in the truck with her husband at a red light, her hand on the door, every ounce of her being fighting to go with him but holding herself back to do what was right for her children. The words "this type of certainty comes but once in a lifetime" echoing in her head.
Through it all, she had doubts of his world traveler lifestyle and whether she would fit in. It was only after he died, leaving a legacy of the live they would have shared if she had chosen a different path. Her children, now adults, learning what she gave up to stay with them.
But it was too late. He Robert spent his life living adventures with and for her, but without her presence, only to die and send back his memories. I've never experienced such love myself, but I can imagine that if it was to come, there would be a reason I could not have it. I would never be able to embrace the love that was brought it to me.
Similarly, The Way We Were examined a great love of two inherently different people. Despite their great affection for each other, they had to finally face the fact that they would never find peace in each others arms, only more tests and tribulations. While excitement came of such ventures, families and futures did not. Another great love was lost due to differing opinions and the need to espresso their way of living separately.
Watching the final scene, as they run not each other n the street, knowing how deeply the did and still do care for one anger, but never able to live with the consequences of heir love, and observing each others great happiness without that love ripped from me great sobs of loss.
The final movie that exacted from me great joy that love can exact meaning in s many strange ways was Leaving Las Vegas. I cannot, at this moment, recall the characters names, but that their expectations of each other we're only to love as much as the other was willing to give and nothing more, without judgement was so beautiful to me.
All three movies elicit from me such different emotions, all are so pure and yet I don't believe I will ever encounter a love matching any of them myself. I don't know if it's because loves looked those written don't truly exist or because I'm not capable of receiving them. It has to come down to one or the other, right?
I seem to be fairly good at sending people packing with a mere slip of the tongue. What was once "I love you more" becomes "I'd like you to leave please" and I never know what comes between. My geisha qualities being slim, I can make a guess, but that's all support to count against true love, further proving I've never experienced it.
Take me as I am and don't expect fairy tales and maybe dreams can come true. Or, at least a slight run at the damned impossible. I do know when you say you're willing to stand by during the hard times, even the first one counts. And the second, as there will likely be more bad than good as you find your footing. That's what makes the long term incredible everlasting love we SHOULD be writing movies about.
Share your favorite movies, thoughts and expectations with me. Frak knows I can use the advice. The photo represents the cold, barren aspect of my love life. Feel the weight of THAT on your shoulders!
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Reform Law
Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Reform Law
Health Care Reform Legislative Brief
Brought to You By Brown & Brown Insurance of Colorado
On June 28, 2012, the last day of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision on the constitutionality of the health care reform law. The Court upheld the entire law, holding that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when enacting the individual mandate. This means that the health care reform law will continue to be implemented as planned and provisions that are already effective will continue.
BACKGROUND
The health care reform law, commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act, was enacted in 2010. Opponents of the law quickly started filing legal challenges to its validity. Most of the legal challenges focused on the constitutionality of the law’s individual mandate—the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance coverage or pay a penalty beginning in 2014.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals split in their decisions regarding the law’s constitutionality. To resolve this uncertainty, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the health care reform law in March 2012. The Court heard six hours of oral argument on the case, which is an extraordinary amount of time for oral argument. Most modern court cases only receive one hour of oral argument so this was indicative of the importance of the health care reform law challenges.
CHALLENGES TO THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
The main substantive challenge to the health care reform law was whether Congress had the authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate multi-state, economic activity. Most of the arguments centered on whether enacting the mandate fell within the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.
Opponents of the health care reform law argued that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate economic inactivity (that is, the decision not to purchase health insurance). They noted that Congress’ Commerce Clause power has never before been extended to this degree, and argued that this would open the door for the federal government to have unrestricted power to regulate.
The Obama Administration, however, stated that the law was an attempt by Congress to address the problems of access and affordability in the national health care market. The Administration pointed to the health care costs associated with the uninsured to demonstrate the economic effect of not purchasing health coverage, and argued that the law expands access to health care by making affordable health insurance more widely available.
Opponents of the law also argued that without the individual mandate, the law could not function as intended and would have to be struck down in its entirety. The Obama Administration argued that, in the event the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional, only certain provisions of the law—those related to guaranteed issue and underwriting restrictions—would also be invalid. Thus, these parts of the law could be severed and all other provisions could stand.
THE COURT’S DECISION
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when enacting the individual mandate. In its ruling, the Court first concluded that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to pass the individual mandate. The Court concluded that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but does not have the authority to compel it. The Court stated that “construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.”
However, the Court held that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under its authority to impose taxes. The majority of the Court agreed that the individual mandate’s penalty is essentially a tax that Congress can impose using its taxing authority. The Court held that “our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in [the individual mandate] under the taxing power, and that [the individual mandate] need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.”
Because the Court upheld the individual mandate, it did not need to decide whether other provisions of the health care reform law were constitutional. One exception to this is a provision that required states to comply with the health care reform law’s new Medicaid eligibility requirements or risk losing their federal funding. The constitutionality of this provision was also before the Court. On that issue, the Court ruled that the provision is constitutional, but that Congress cannot penalize states that decide not to participate in the law’s Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
Because the individual mandate was upheld, all aspects of the health care reform law that have been implemented will remain in effect. Additionally, the remaining provisions of the health care reform law that are not currently in effect will continue to be implemented as planned. Most notably, beginning in 2014, all individuals will generally be required to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
Many of the health care reform law’s provisions require agency guidance to be implemented. The Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury have been regularly issuing guidance to implement the health care reforms. These agencies will continue to promulgate regulations relating to the health care reform law, and employers and health plans will be required to comply with these to the same extent that they are required to comply with the various provisions of the health care reform law.
Although the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate is constitutional, opponents of the health care reform law may challenge other provisions using various legal arguments. If any further challenges arise, courts will address these accordingly.
Additionally, members of Congress have already introduced new legislation to amend or repeal various parts of the health care reform law, and likely will continue with this strategy. Each of these possibilities may have an impact on the health care reform law and its requirements in the future.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision is available at: www.supremecourt.gov/.
Legislative Brief brought to you by Brown & Brown Insurance
Health Care Reform Legislative Brief
Brought to You By Brown & Brown Insurance of Colorado
On June 28, 2012, the last day of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision on the constitutionality of the health care reform law. The Court upheld the entire law, holding that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when enacting the individual mandate. This means that the health care reform law will continue to be implemented as planned and provisions that are already effective will continue.
BACKGROUND
The health care reform law, commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act, was enacted in 2010. Opponents of the law quickly started filing legal challenges to its validity. Most of the legal challenges focused on the constitutionality of the law’s individual mandate—the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance coverage or pay a penalty beginning in 2014.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals split in their decisions regarding the law’s constitutionality. To resolve this uncertainty, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the health care reform law in March 2012. The Court heard six hours of oral argument on the case, which is an extraordinary amount of time for oral argument. Most modern court cases only receive one hour of oral argument so this was indicative of the importance of the health care reform law challenges.
CHALLENGES TO THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
The main substantive challenge to the health care reform law was whether Congress had the authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate multi-state, economic activity. Most of the arguments centered on whether enacting the mandate fell within the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.
Opponents of the health care reform law argued that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate economic inactivity (that is, the decision not to purchase health insurance). They noted that Congress’ Commerce Clause power has never before been extended to this degree, and argued that this would open the door for the federal government to have unrestricted power to regulate.
The Obama Administration, however, stated that the law was an attempt by Congress to address the problems of access and affordability in the national health care market. The Administration pointed to the health care costs associated with the uninsured to demonstrate the economic effect of not purchasing health coverage, and argued that the law expands access to health care by making affordable health insurance more widely available.
Opponents of the law also argued that without the individual mandate, the law could not function as intended and would have to be struck down in its entirety. The Obama Administration argued that, in the event the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional, only certain provisions of the law—those related to guaranteed issue and underwriting restrictions—would also be invalid. Thus, these parts of the law could be severed and all other provisions could stand.
THE COURT’S DECISION
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when enacting the individual mandate. In its ruling, the Court first concluded that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to pass the individual mandate. The Court concluded that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but does not have the authority to compel it. The Court stated that “construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.”
However, the Court held that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under its authority to impose taxes. The majority of the Court agreed that the individual mandate’s penalty is essentially a tax that Congress can impose using its taxing authority. The Court held that “our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in [the individual mandate] under the taxing power, and that [the individual mandate] need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.”
Because the Court upheld the individual mandate, it did not need to decide whether other provisions of the health care reform law were constitutional. One exception to this is a provision that required states to comply with the health care reform law’s new Medicaid eligibility requirements or risk losing their federal funding. The constitutionality of this provision was also before the Court. On that issue, the Court ruled that the provision is constitutional, but that Congress cannot penalize states that decide not to participate in the law’s Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
Because the individual mandate was upheld, all aspects of the health care reform law that have been implemented will remain in effect. Additionally, the remaining provisions of the health care reform law that are not currently in effect will continue to be implemented as planned. Most notably, beginning in 2014, all individuals will generally be required to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
Many of the health care reform law’s provisions require agency guidance to be implemented. The Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury have been regularly issuing guidance to implement the health care reforms. These agencies will continue to promulgate regulations relating to the health care reform law, and employers and health plans will be required to comply with these to the same extent that they are required to comply with the various provisions of the health care reform law.
Although the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate is constitutional, opponents of the health care reform law may challenge other provisions using various legal arguments. If any further challenges arise, courts will address these accordingly.
Additionally, members of Congress have already introduced new legislation to amend or repeal various parts of the health care reform law, and likely will continue with this strategy. Each of these possibilities may have an impact on the health care reform law and its requirements in the future.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision is available at: www.supremecourt.gov/.
Legislative Brief brought to you by Brown & Brown Insurance
Monday, June 18, 2012
#VaginaBlogs: Sexual Equality
I'm not going to give you the details of VaginaGate, because my friend Rachel did it so well in her blog, Vagina, Vagina, Vagina. Read and react.
If there is one thing you cannot debate, it's the attack we've had, as women, on our bodies this past year. We are a constant subject on the floor of Capitols all across America and the conversation takes place as if we have no brain, no soul, no beating heart. As if we are nothing but the vagina and uterus that lie within us.
This past week took it to new heights when Michigan House Representatives were barred from speaking further on the House floor for speaking out of turn. For using the word vagina. If adults cannot even use the word without turning to mush and falling apart, how can they have a true discussion about the topic? What right do they have to discuss the topic at all?
They have no right. None at all.
Women are not child-bearing vessels. We are human beings. We are one half of a two part biological process required to bring life into this world. We do not create life on our own. We do not walk down the street and life spontaneously creates inside our wombs.
We have been given the accountability to bear our young, should we decide to bring children to this earth. But let us be clear, it is a decision, regardless of whether our bodies are the more important of the two sexes at the regeneration of the human species. Jealousy of our gift does not give others the right to monitor or control it.
If it were not a choice, the male would have equal accountability. Once his seed had been dropped off, his responsibility for his part in the process would require follow up. But America isn't willing to address the topic of reproduction on an equal basis between the two sexes required to create life.
Until that sexual equality has been reached, feel free to steer clear of our vagina and our uterus. We have them under control. We deal with them and their actions monthly. God forbid menses be discussed on the House floor. The good news is that none of this is necessary. Our bodies, our choice. For this woman, the conversation is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
